European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Any decision rejecting a complaint taken pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 773/2004 must state the reasons for such decision in a way that is appropriate to the act at issue and takes into account the circumstances of each case . The Commission meets the requirement to state reasons when it sets out in detail the specific reasons for rejecting the complaint, referring specifically to the cont …

Obligation to state reasons

Any decision rejecting a complaint taken pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 773/2004 must state the reasons for such decision in a way that is appropriate to the act at issue and takes into account the circumstances of each case . The Commission meets the requirement to state reasons when it sets out in detail the specific reasons for rejecting the complaint, referring specifically to the context of the case . It must set out all the legal and factual considerations which led to the rejection of the complaint  but is not under a duty to address all the legal and factual issues raised by the complainant . The Commission can simply refer to the letter of communication of reasons insofar as it disclosed with sufficient clarity the reasons for which the complaint was rejected  or can set out just those facts and legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision . The statement of reasons must enable the Court effectively to review the Commission's use of its discretion to define priorities . The Commission is under no obligation to refer expressly to the concept of EU interest . The Court has a limited power of review of the Commission's statement of reasons and this is limited to matters concerning the material accuracy of the facts, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and the misappropriation of power.

The statement of reasons must be such as to enable persons concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that, if necessary, they can defend their rights and verify whether the decision is well founded .

Reasons that may not be relied on as grounds for rejecting a complaint are brought to light by considering the case law. The fact that an infringement has ceased cannot in itself justify a rejection: the Commission is under a duty to assess whether there are any persisting anticompetitive effects of that infringement . A decision to reject a complaint also cannot be founded on the finding that the infringement would not bring about a change in the situation of the complainants , or that the practice in question was encouraged by the national authorities . In the particular case where it rejects a complaint on the basis of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, according to which “[...] The Commission may [...] reject a complaint on the ground that a competition authority of a Member State is dealing with the case”, the Commission is only required to ensure that two conditions are fulfilled: a competition authority of a Member State is dealing with the case and the case must relate to a complaint against the “same agreement, decision of an association or practice” . According to the General Court, “dealing with” for the purposes of Article  13 cannot mean only that the competition authority is seized of a case, but assumes the use by that authority of its powers and an examination of the relevant facts and points of law in the case in question such as the launching of an enquiry or the sending out of questionnaires to undertakings in the sector concerned . Further, the complaint may be rejected even if the national authority has itself rejected the complaint on priority grounds provided that it has  carried out a review of it in the light of EU competition law .

See Commission Notice No 2004/C 101/05 of 27 April 2004, at pt 74.

Case T-110/95 IECC v Commission [1998] ECR II-3605, LawLex200500005182JBJ.

Case T-37/92 BEUC and NCC v Commission [1994] ECR II-285, LawLex200500004005JBJ.

Case T-2/92 Rendo and others v Commission.

Case T-201/11 Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d., Judgment of 17 December 2014, LawLex201400001466JBJ.

Case T-201/11  cited above; Case T-431/16 Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH, Judgment of 26 October 2017, not available in English.

Case T-355/13 easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, Judgment of 21 January 2015, LawLex201500000052JBJ.

Case T-37/92 BEUC and NCC v Commission [1994] ECR II-285, LawLex200500004005JBJ; Case C-59/96 P Koelman v Commission [1997] ECR I-4809, LawLex200700001477JBJ.

Case T-16/91 Rendo and others v Commission [1992] ECR II-2417, LawLex200400003675JBJ.

Case T-504/93 Tiercé Ladbroke v Commission [1997] ECR II-923, LawLex200400002919JBJ.

Case T-5/97 Industrie des poudres sphériques v Commission [2000] ECR II-3755, LawLex200400002976JBJ.

Case T-62/99 Sodima v Commission [2001] ECR II-655, LawLex200500005174JBJ.

Case C-450/98 P IECC v Commission [2001] ECR I-3947, LawLex200500004897JBJ.

Case T-206/99 Métropole télévision v Commission [2001] ECR II-1057, LawLex200500005159JBJ.

Commission Notice No 2004/C 101/05 of 27 April 2004, at pt 45; Case C-450/98 P IECC v Commission [2001] ECR I-3947, LawLex200500004897JBJ.

European Competition Law

195. Obligation to state reasons

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

195. Obligation to state reasons

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise